Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Rembacher
1 day ago
Straight Male, 43
0 miles · Ontario
Profile Stories
5
Ebooks Friends
7
Follows
4
Forum
612
Groups

Forum
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by freefallin1309
Quote by Jebru
I've been hit with thrown rocks. I survived. If you think your gun is only as deadly as a thrown rock, then you should try putting bullets in it.


I'd be willing to bet I could kill you with a rock, trust me ;) As well as the other mentioned ranged weapons. So you're saying we should ban any way to kill people at a distance? Make them get more up close and personal? That would be no problem to many thugs who live day and night on the streets learning how to fight, not to mention prison, ever met someone who spent time in prison? Ever fought one? Then they get up close and beat you to death instead. All they need are natural weapons for that ... hands, feet, elbows, knees. You're blaming tools for killing, that in itself is a major fail, blaming that poor harmless inanimate object for what the wielder did.


I thought we already covered that it's the people not the weapons. That's how we got into this whole thing of you killing me with a rock. I don't dispute that if someone really wants to, they can find a way to kill me. But if you are going to do it with a rock, you are going to have to find a way to get up close enough to hit me over the head with it without me seeing you. If you try and throw a rock at me, there is a significant arm action involved in that. Same with knives, and axes. Bows and Crossbows would have less arm action to fire, but at the same time, if I see someone with a bow, or crossbow in the middle of the city, I'm going to take the long way home, and not risk it. It's a lot harder to see that someone has a pistol.

Have I ever met a person who has been to jail? Yes. Have I ever fought one? No. I tend to avoid those situations where possible. I keep my eyes open at night, so that I don't get surprised by anyone. But that wasn't the idiot I was referring to. It is impossible to stop all criminals. Like you say, if you take away guns, they will find a way. But guns just make it easier. The reason I don't like guns as self defence tools is for the reason I've been trying to explain all along, including with the news story I posted earlier. It's too easy to make a mistake.

Whether it's as in the story posted, where the man mistook his daughter for an intruder, and shot her; or a situation where I just happen to be in the wrong place at the time. For example, I'm walking down the street behind a lady who happens to drop something. I pick it up, and try to give it back to her. But she's recently been attacked, or harassed and is on edge, so she thinks I'm trying to attack her. She feels she has to react before I overpower her, pulls her gun from her purse, and fires. Only afterward seeing that I'm holding a possession of hers and trying to return it.

My uncle likes to tell me the story of when he started working for Brinks, as an armed delivery guard. He was in a small town, and two off duty cops saw the truck, and knew the drivers he was working with, so they decided to have a little fun, with them, and parked their vehicle in an agressive manner, blocking in the armoured vehicle. My uncle did not know these guys, so he reacted the way he was trained. He pulled his gun on the two men. The off duty cops were nervous. They could tell he was a rookie, and nervous. He hadn't been in that situation before. They were concerned that his nerves would get to him, and he would accidentally pull the trigger. This situation got sorted out safely, but for me, it is still a reminder that nervous people, scared people make mistakes. If they use a baseball bat, or some other object to defend their property, there is far less chance of them making a mistake that can't be undone.

Criminals also make mistakes. They don't always get the person they are aiming for. If we outlaw all guns, they will still find a way to attack people, but incidents like the Jane Creba case in Toronto wouldn't happen. If I do something that someone feels is worth killing me over, if they have to stick a spoon through my eye to do it, then at least they won't hit the 6 people around me too. By the way, did we really need that graphic of a description?

The argument has also been made that criminals can't legally acquire guns. There is one thing that needs to be pointed out in that. CONVICTED criminals can't legally acquire guns. There are plenty of people with no criminal record who would have no problem acquiring a gun, and then would use it in the execution of a crime. In Canada, our criminals have a lot harder time accessing guns.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
I've been hit with thrown rocks. I survived. If you think your gun is only as deadly as a thrown rock, then you should try putting bullets in it.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
I'm not scared of guns, I'm scared of the scared idiot holding the gun. He/she has to get a lot closer to me with any other weapon to harm me, and hopefully by then he/she will see that I'm a friendly, laid back Canadian who isn't a threat.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
I have a bad habit of finding the girls who are missing the emotionally stable part.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Playmale
Quote by Jebru
OK. I clicked the link, and read the entire writeup, but still do not see the tables they refer to with the full statistics. I only see the ones they highlight in their writeup. A few flaws with their information jump out at me. 1. They admit that 25% of the people who claimed to have used a gun for defensive purposes, also said in the same survey that they did not actually own a gun. 2. The statistics are compiled through surveys. You have to be alive to answer the questions, which means that the information automatically excludes those who were murdered while trying to use a gun to protect themselves. This exclusion creates a more positive result to the study than what reality actually is. 3. There is no way to determine how many of the people who thought they would have been killed, actually would have been. It's all left up to untrained civilians to determine whether they actually did avert a deadly situation.


The statistics are for successful gun defenses (2.5 million in this survey), the non successful gun defenses are the murders and gun crime statistics most rely on (about 60,000 per year). They discuss the fallacy of reasoning in assuming the victims passive role as a willing target. The link at the bottom of the report goes to the full report, they summarize the survey method, and give the statistics in the narrative. They further go on to have a peer review by an expert with the contrairian viewpoint, who conceeds that the article is accurate. Then the government tried to duplicate and disprove the study, yet only confirmed it stating that they most likely underestimated because of exclusions.


While all Rs reporting a DGU were given the full interview, only a one-third random sample of Rs not reporting a DGU were interviewed. The rest were simply thanked for their help. This procedure helped keep interviewing costs down. In the end, there were 222 completed interviews with Rs reporting DGUs, another 1,610 Rs not reporting a DGU but going through the full interview by answering questions other than those pertaining to details of the DGUs. There were a total of 1,832 cases with the full interview. An additional 3,145 Rs answered only enough questions to establish that no one in their household had experienced a DGU against a human in the previous five years (unweighted totals). These procedures effectively under-sampled for non-DGU Rs or, equivalently, over sampled for DGU-involved Rs. Data were also weighted to account for this over sampling.


The 2.5 million was an estimate, the actual survey was far smaller. Are you sure you read it? Or my response? I said that they reference only select pieces of data, but do not show all the results. And they admit that 25% of the respondants have inconsistant testimony (gun use, with no gun possession) they dismiss that inconsistancy with a theory, but then does that not make the entire study theoretical, when it claims to be practical?

Quote by Playmale
Quote by Jebru
Now, to my points I raised before. I'm not saying that guns are primarily used against loved ones. You seem to be dismissing this because the majority of uses are not at family members, while I still feel it is a significant minority. If you say they are defences, not accidents, then where do the accidents get accounted for? Or is that another factor the study fails to account for. A comprehensive study should also include how many times a gun was used in defense of a percieved threat, that turned out to not be one.

Those are accounted for in the gunshot wound and fatalities statistics, which are the statistics most used to support gun control.

Where are those listed? If the study is truly comprehensive, it should have a breakdown of those as well. The study mentions 5% or respondants were injured in an attempted defence, but never mentions failed defence attempts that lead to death. Also, since this information was gathered through surveys, it is most likely that failed defensive attempts were under-reported. Even in an anonymous survey people are far less likely to admit their failures than their successes, but the narrative does not address that.

Quote by Playmale
Quote by Jebru
And how does my assumption make no sense? Your stats state that in 83.5% of successful defences, the attacker either threatened or used force first. I'm asking what caused the defender to draw their gun in the other 16.5% of the cases, since they were neither threatened, nor had force used on them, as that was covered in the category represented by 83.5% of the defenders.

You're making assumptions about what the conditions were in those cases, and that is not a valid argument.

I am not making any argument. I'm asking for an explanation of the circumstances, one which you don't seem to have, so you instead attack me for something I'm not even doing.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
OK. I clicked the link, and read the entire writeup, but still do not see the tables they refer to with the full statistics. I only see the ones they highlight in their writeup. A few flaws with their information jump out at me. 1. They admit that 25% of the people who claimed to have used a gun for defensive purposes, also said in the same survey that they did not actually own a gun. 2. The statistics are compiled through surveys. You have to be alive to answer the questions, which means that the information automatically excludes those who were murdered while trying to use a gun to protect themselves. This exclusion creates a more positive result to the study than what reality actually is. 3. There is no way to determine how many of the people who thought they would have been killed, actually would have been. It's all left up to untrained civilians to determine whether they actually did avert a deadly situation.

Now, to my points I raised before. I'm not saying that guns are primarily used against loved ones. You seem to be dismissing this because the majority of uses are not at family members, while I still feel it is a significant minority. If you say they are defences, not accidents, then where do the accidents get accounted for? Or is that another factor the study fails to account for. A comprehensive study should also include how many times a gun was used in defense of a percieved threat, that turned out to not be one.

And how does my assumption make no sense? Your stats state that in 83.5% of successful defences, the attacker either threatened or used force first. I'm asking what caused the defender to draw their gun in the other 16.5% of the cases, since they were neither threatened, nor had force used on them, as that was covered in the category represented by 83.5% of the defenders.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Playmale
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

Those are some very interesting statistics. It would be good to see the full study and all the responses. For one, how well below 10% is the use of guns against family members? Because I would still consider 5% to be very high. That would mean that 1 in 20 times a gun was used, it was used by mistake. And it could be more, because there is a dataset unaccounted for. If in 73.4% of incidents the attacker was a stranger, and "well under 10%" were against family members, what happened in the other 16.4 to 26.4% of incidents?

I'm also curious about the 16.5% of the time when the defender drew their weapon without being threatened or attacked first. If threats or force were not used, why did they draw their gun? That's 1 in every 6.25 times a gun was drawn it was done with no provocation.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Man Accidentally Shoots Daughter Since we have a random story of how a gun owner shot an intruder, I figured I'd post one from the other side. This one is a few years old, about a woman who was trying to get into her parents house early in the morning, and was mistaken for a thief. There was also a case recently where someone shot their partner after mistaking them for a thief. I couldn't find the article, but if I remember the details right, the woman woke up in the middle of the night, and went downstairs for a glass of water. Her partner heard her, but thought it was a theif. When she came back into the room, he shot and killed her before turning on the lights and seeing it was his partner.

I know, these are careless gunowners, and you would never be like them. But accidents happen. And you can compare your gun to to a fire extinguisher, or smoke detector, but neither of those devices also have the potential to set your house on fire.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Should we move into a debate about the US justice system, and its effectiveness/ineffectiveness? lol. The stats we were looking at were not gun crimes in general, but murders committed using guns. And I think we are all in agreement that the definition for that is a bullet causing the death of a person. The reason I distinguish between gun murders, and knife or other, is that a gun allows someone to kill from a greater distance, whereas another weapon would require them to get up close and personal. Also, I'm not sure that anyone has ever been killed by a stray knife. But stray bullets do kill innocent bystanders all the time.

If we want to talk about crimes in general, I'd like to know where you are getting your stats Nudie. These are the crime stats I found, which indicate the US is 8th in crimes per capita according to Nationmaster.com which pulled its info from United Nations reports.

Crime Statistics > Total crimes (per capita) (most recent) by country

# 1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
# 2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
# 3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
# 4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
# 5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 9 Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people
# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
# 13 Norway: 71.8639 per 1,000 people
# 14 France: 62.1843 per 1,000 people
# 15 Seychelles: 52.9265 per 1,000 people
# 16 Hungary: 44.9763 per 1,000 people
# 17 Estonia: 43.3601 per 1,000 people
# 18 Czech Republic: 38.2257 per 1,000 people
# 19 Italy: 37.9633 per 1,000 people
# 20 Switzerland: 36.1864 per 1,000 people
# 21 Portugal: 34.3833 per 1,000 people
# 22 Slovenia: 33.6236 per 1,000 people
# 23 Poland: 32.8573 per 1,000 people
# 24 Korea, South: 31.7267 per 1,000 people
# 25 Mauritius: 29.1982 per 1,000 people
# 26 Zimbabwe: 28.8753 per 1,000 people
# 27 Lithuania: 22.8996 per 1,000 people
# 28 Spain: 22.8867 per 1,000 people
# 29 Latvia: 21.921 per 1,000 people
# 30 Uruguay: 21.7017 per 1,000 people
# 31 Russia: 20.5855 per 1,000 people
# 32 Ireland: 20.2376 per 1,000 people
# 33 Bulgaria: 19.9886 per 1,000 people
# 34 Japan: 19.177 per 1,000 people
# 35 Romania: 16.4812 per 1,000 people
# 36 Slovakia: 16.3537 per 1,000 people
# 37 Jamaica: 14.3231 per 1,000 people
# 38 Belarus: 13.1592 per 1,000 people
# 39 Mexico: 12.8406 per 1,000 people
# 40 Tunisia: 12.5634 per 1,000 people
# 41 Costa Rica: 11.9788 per 1,000 people
# 42 Ukraine: 11.7793 per 1,000 people
# 43 Hong Kong: 11.6817 per 1,000 people
# 44 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 9.689 per 1,000 people
# 45 Greece: 9.6347 per 1,000 people
# 46 Venezuela: 9.307 per 1,000 people
# 47 Thailand: 8.80422 per 1,000 people
# 48 Moldova: 8.58967 per 1,000 people
# 49 Kyrgyzstan: 7.50486 per 1,000 people
# 50 Malaysia: 6.97921 per 1,000 people
# 51 Qatar: 6.76437 per 1,000 people
# 52 Zambia: 5.27668 per 1,000 people
# 53 Colombia: 4.98654 per 1,000 people
# 54 Turkey: 4.11252 per 1,000 people
# 55 Armenia: 4.03889 per 1,000 people
# 56 Georgia: 3.21338 per 1,000 people
# 57 Papua New Guinea: 2.39711 per 1,000 people
# 58 Azerbaijan: 1.76416 per 1,000 people
# 59 India: 1.63352 per 1,000 people
# 60 Yemen: 1.16109 per 1,000 people



Remington, why do you feel that you need protection from your government? That makes it sound like you would stage a coup if you weren't happy with the government. Why do you need to do that in a democracy? It's that type of talk that makes us anti gun people nervous about the guns being available.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
I like that idea. If it's a thread I'm really passionate, or curious about, I will select the option to be updated whenever someone posts, but a list of the threads I've started would be good too.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Michael Moore is an idiot, but I think he had a point when it comes to this issue. The US is a culture of fear. The media sensationalizes crime, knowing that people buy more newspapers, and pay attention to the newscasts more when there is something scary being reported. The politicians use fear to convince the public that there is something out there that they need to be protected from, and that the politicians have the solution.

Other factors also come in to play. Population density for one. The urban areas have higher crime rates in part because you don't have the space you would in a rural area to stay away from a neighbour who is annoying you. Economic factors too. When you have a large group of people who see no legal way out of the situation, they will resort to illegal ones.

But fear seems to be the thing that drives gun ownership the most. I think every gun owner on this thread said they have their gun to keep them safe. For some people, in rougher neighbourhoods, I can understand that argument. It's dangerous and you have to make a show of strength to gain respect and be left alone. But for the average family in suburbia, why are you so concerned about something that is most likely never going to happen?

I live in Windsor, Ontario. It's one of the roughest, and most crime troubled cities in Canada. People are careful about what they do, and where they go late at night. But I don't hear people talking about feeling they need a gun to be safe. Maybe we are naive, but we just don't fear crime. We realise that we could be the victim of crime, but we choose to enjoy life, rather than live every day in fear that one day we might be a victim. If you live each day in fear of being attacked, haven't the criminals already taken away your freedom?
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by MrNudiePants

1. United States... Guns Per 100: 90.............Murder rank: 24th
2. Yemen............Guns Per 100: 61..............Murder rank: 27th
3. Finland............Guns Per 100: 56..............Murder rank: 30th
4. Switzerland.....Guns Per 100: 46..............Murder rank: 56th
5. Iraq...............Guns Per 100: 39.............. Murder rank: Not listed. (Possibly because the ongoing military actions make "murder" a questionable term.)
6. Serbia............Guns Per 100: 38..............Murder rank: Also not listed. (Possibly due to lack of data?)
7. France............Guns Per 100: 32.............. Murder rank: 16th
8. Canada...........Guns Per 100: 31.............. Murder rank: 30th
8. Sweden...........Guns Per 100: 31..............Murder rank: 45th
8. Austria ...........Guns Per 100: 31.............. Murder rank: 65th

The countries with the highest murder rate were India, Russia, and Columbia, which come in at #31, #24, and #26 (respectively) in terms of gun ownership. Food for thought. But relax, Damon. I'm not pissed off at you. There are scads and scads of misunderstandings that non-gun-owners have about gun owners. We're all bloodthirsty morons with low IQ's and one eye brow. We're all alcoholics, and spouse abusers. We're all ticking time bombs, just waiting for the wrong moment to be set off. Right? When in reality, WE'RE JUST LIKE YOU. We love life, we love our fellow man, and we don't know where the tunnel goes when we reach the ends of our lives. One thing we DO know is that we're willing to fight for our lives, and our liberties. And most of us are willing to fight for our neighbors' lives, as well.


I'm anti gun, so I'm biased, but I don't understand how you can look at these stats you posted, and then look at Dancing Doll's stats, and not think there is a co-relation between gun ownership, and gun deaths. The US is only ranked 24th per capita in the world when it comes to overall murders, but is 8th in gun murders. Doesn't that refute the idea that guns keep you safe?

It has been mentioned that you having a gun deters a criminal from trying anything. If that theory was correct, wouldn't your crime rate be the lowest of any country, considering you have more guns per capita than any other country, therefore the most deterance per capita of any country?

And yes, the 115 pound woman may be safer with her gun against a large attacker with no gun, but what happens if he has a gun? There is a huge difference between shooting at targets compared to shooting a person while under duress. What if she misses him? Before she pulled the gun, yes, she probably was going to be . After she shot at him, he can't risk her getting lucky and hitting him, so he's going to shoot her. And I'm betting on the attacker being able to remain calmer, and be more accurate than the woman being attacked.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Lady_Lydia
Being abandoned.


I'll second that. It definitely sucks.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
I think I've been surprised the most by how much this site has changed while I have been here. I know not all the changes have been liked by all the people. One of my friends experienced a culture shock when she came back here after a long time gone. It is more open, and social now, but the trade off is that the anonymity she felt she had enjoyed before was gone. It wasn't the only reason she left, but it was one of them.

I like the changes. I know Nicola is probably tired of me messaging her asking "what if we did this?" or "have you ever considered doing that?" but that is one of the things that makes this site great. Everyone is accessable, even the people in charge.

The biggest change that I enjoy is the ability to chat with people on the site, either one on one, or in the chat rooms. Before that, it was either trade a hundred private messages a night with someone, or give out your personal email address. The chat is a nice way to balance that. You can chat, but it still remains on the site, rather than into the rest of your life, if you still aren't sure about the person.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
I tend to treat lush as reality. And because I treat it as the real world, the people I interact with tend to do that too. But I've also been accused of bringing too much reality here too. It was suggested to me that some people use lush as an escape from a reality they aren't happy with, and sometimes being too real can remind them of it rather than let them escape.

I think both points are valid. It is reality when you treat it that way, but it can also be the escape from reality. As Van says, it can be a place where you show your true self without fear of rejection or ridicule.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Jillicious
I'm going to have to agree with WMM on this one.
I would even go a step further and say the only security we need is to allow people to check in their guns before flying and allow them to hold onto them in flight.
How many people would try something stupid if there were a plane full of other people ready to shoot them?


Short answer, yes, they would try something. Probably even hoping someone tries to shoot them. Air marshals are tested 4 times a year, on their marksmanship, so they can safely fire a gun in the tight, dangerous confines of an aircraft. Do you really want your neighbour firing off a gun, while you are 30,000 feet in the air? Especially if that neighbour has had a few drinks, do you really trust they will hit what they are aiming at? If you are lucky, they just hit an innocent bystander. If you are unlucky, they bring down the entire plane.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
This story got mentioned in my Managing Information Systems class today. lol. Time for me to head to the coincidences thread and figure out whether it's a sign that my identity is about to be hacked.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
The fact that I'm alive to day, basically forces me to believe in fate, karma, or some form of supernatural force. When I was 2 years old I snuck away from my parents, and got out on the street. I was hit by a car, and broke my jaw, but did not lose a drop of blood. This made the doctors concerned about internal injuries, and when they checked for them they found cancer, a Wilms Tumour, on my kidney. They removed the damaged kidney, and I've been fine ever since. Would the doctors have found my cancer in time if I had not been hit by a car? I doubt it. And for me, being saved from cancer by a car accident, is too much of a coincidence to not have some higher power making it happen.

The problem is believing in it too much. You start attaching far too much meaning to the simplest of things. Some times things are just a coincidence.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Charlie_Brown
Nope, A Blue Leaf is a Blue Leaf.Zvkxl12In5BxhhxV But J I will say this for ya tho; Thank God You didn't say you were a Senators fan. I would've had ya SHOT!


I like Fisher and Volchenkov, but there is still too much Maple Leaf blue in my blood to feel right cheering for the Sens. It's still a little odd to cheer for the Canadiens, but the Leafs-Habs rivalry really hasn't been strong since Felix Potvin was in goal for Toronto.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
I used to be a Leafs fan, but gave up on them when they hired Brian Burke, and kept Ron Wilson. Of the teams that are left, I'm definitely cheering for the Canadiens.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Loislane
Steve Buscemi in Con Air

Yeah, Steve Buscemi nailed the creepy guy in that one, but then almost any role he does seems a little creepy.
View Post
Rembacher
Active Ink Slinger
According to that, I still am a lesbian. lol. That might explain my fascination with lesbians.
View Post